I love engaging in the battle of ideas. That’s why I got into the think tank/public policy business in the first place. Unfortunately, the ideological opponents of the Rio Grande Foundation don’t always bother with pesky things like facts and data. I understand, after all, when the facts and data aren’t on your side, it makes sense to just spew anger and ad hominem.
Case in point, this hilarious letter to the editor from today’s Albuquerque Journal:
THE QUESTION IS, why does the Journal give repeated ink to Paul Gessing, “Put Rail Runner Out of Its Misery Sooner, Not Later,” for his attack on all things that serve the public good? You could just as easily print a short letter from him with a byline: Here he goes again trying to fit his square peg of ideology into a round hole, because Gessing always comes to the same Libertarian conclusion whether it be education, roads, water, etc. Things that serve the public are run bad, too expensive, corrupt or out of control. His math and examples of financing and utility are always so distorted as to not make any sense except to his cult followers. …
In fact, the Rail Runner should be expanded quickly from El Paso to Denver and eventually from Mexico City to Canada. We could cut out some of the expensive war bases in New Mexico and fund it easily, but you won’t hear that from the Journal or from its favorite son, Paul Gessing.
BEN ACO
Albuquerque
Notice the absence of any specific reasoning or argument. Lots of jealousy and anger, though. Of course, the writer further displays his ignorance by ignoring the Rio Grande Foundation’s advocacy of spending on the Paseo/I-25 interchange, but that would involve actual research and facts.
Rather than wondering why the Journal runs the Rio Grande Foundation’s research and writing, I’m wondering why people who bring no facts or data to the table expect New Mexico’s most widely-read newspaper to publish their work.
Paul:
This guy is obviously intellectually and historically-challenged.
You should look for larger fist-fights.
Cheers.
John
Paul, roads are there regardless of economic conditions & you cherry pick what you write.
Your constant attacks on rail are based on a false premise.
Andrew … it you and people like you who would rather throw money down the toilet on BAD LIBERAL IDEAS, instead of doing your homework on GOOD AMERICAN IDEAS. The doomed rail runner is nothing but a con-game put together by Richardson and his cronnies … just another dumb idea that he wanted his name put on.
Keep following the “losers” down the road Andrew……..
I tell you’re a LIBERAL, that’s why you love big government roads!
Well, I guess we are up to reinventing the wheel. If we run RAIL RUNNER from El Paso to Canada, is it going to be another subdivision of AMTRAC? The “expensive war bases” come out of one pocket, the federal pocket and the Rail Runner comes out of the Santa Fe pocket, which is in effect the pocket of ALL New Mexicans. I want my own rail road and it should run from Alamogordo to Cloudcroft. Only then would I feel I would be getting some return on my money. I could actually see it daily.
@John WTF are you smoking?
It is amazing how these left wingers always want to eliminate the “war bases” apparently in the naive belief that if we just do that, the world would break out in peace and we can all sit around holding hands and singing Kum Bah Ya.
On the other hand, as he wants to transfer defense funds from bases to rail lines, perhaps he plans in the future to invade Mexico and Canada! Or, is it because the lefties have ruined our economy with similar programs he expects illegals to bypass us and go directly to Canada?
Not all left leaning people are the same, just as not all right leaning people are the same.
I’ve dealt with right leaning people that are against the military too.
What “public good” is served by subsidizing a narrow-corridor, under-utilized rail line when it continues to siphon monies that could be more effectively used by consumers from their pockets. If the market of ABQ to SF commuters had really wanted a rail line, someone would have laid the tracks and purchased the rolling stock with investment capital and not with forcibly extracted taxpayer dollars. There hasn’t been a Government-run rail system in US history that hasn’t lost money hand over fist.
Having been one of those ABQ to SF commuters for several years, the defects in the Rail Runner are, not necessarily in order: 1. It doesn’t pick up anywhere near where I live, nor drop off anywhere near where I worked, necessitating the use of two vehicles to use “park & ride” rather than one. 2. When one is required to carry enough tools for work that a vehicle is required to transport them, rail transport doesn’t work. 3. The schedule of the Rail Runner just didn’t work for me, or my employer.
I really don’t feel like financially supporting a commuter train that I can’t really even make use of. Some folks feel entitled to have their commutes subsidized with other people’s hard-earned, but I don’t support that kind of thing personally. If you need to get to Santa Fe, or Belen, or Los Lunas, pay your own way freeloaders!
RailRunner operations would be better off if they use Diesel Multiple Units instead of locomotive hauled trains.
Though you’re also over looking that freight trains use the same tracks as well.
Andrew, please explain the difference between the types of motive power you are talking about. The residents of Carlsbad and Hobbs get SO much good benefits from the Rail Runner that I’m sure that we could use some of your enlightenment.
With Diesel Multiple Units just one car can be a train on to it self.
This is also the type equipment the Denton Texas is using for their local train service.
Why haven’t they done this here with the Rail Runner?
Roads lose money, do you want the street in front of your house closed?